A recent Gallup Poll shows Americans by a by a 2-to-1 margin believe the Senate should vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Where do the people of New Jersey stand on the issue? We haven’t seen any polls specific to New Jersey’s residents, but it seems likely citizens of the Garden State would favor elevating their hometown boy to the highest court in the land. Not simply because he’s homegrown, but because Alito is eminently qualified for the position.

This brings us to wondering how Senator Frank Lautenberg and the newly minted Senator Bob Menendez will vote on Alito’s confirmation. Will they vote against confirmation to placate the extreme left in New Jersey’s Democratic Party or will they vote to confirm a highly qualified Federal Appeals Court Judge?

Does it matter what the people of New Jersey prefer or do Lautenberg and Menendez believe only activists in their party will pay attention and a vote against confirming Alto is politically expedient?

Judge Alito will be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court with or without the support of the Senators from New Jersey. It will be a sad day if Lautenberg and Menendez vote against one of their own constituents merely out of partisan vindictiveness and for show.

Why not give our senators a call and let them know Judge Alito has your support and deserves a yes vote for confirmation. You can tell them you’re not alone in your opinion, the state’s newspaper of record, the Star-Ledger agrees in their editorial Confirm Alito to the court.

2 Comments:

You said:"It will be a sad day if Lautenberg and Menendez vote against one of their own constituents merely out of partisan vindictiveness and for show."

What if they vote against him because he refused to answer important questions about his position on Roe as settled law? What if they vote against him because, throughout his career as a judge, he has exhibited a commitment to ruling on ideology and finding minutiae in the case or in statutes to justify that ruling? I assume you'd be alright with that.

“[T]hroughout his career as a judge, he has exhibited a commitment to ruling on ideology and finding minutiae in the case or in statutes to justify that ruling."

If that were the case, you might have a point. If you followed the hearings or read the transcripts you’d know that no one who has worked with Alito or sat with him on the 3rd Circuit would agree with your premise that Alito’s rulings have been based on ideology.

As to your quip “finding minutiae in the case or in statutes to justify that ruling”, perhaps you could provide some examples to back up your point. The ABA gave Alito a unanimous well-qualified rating, hardly a rating one would expect if he used off the wall minutiae to justify his rulings.

If Lautenberg and Menendez vote against Alito because he refused to answer questions about his position on Roe or other issues that may come before the court, then we’d say they don’t understand judicial ethics.

Canon 5 "prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. As a corollary, a candidate should emphasize in any public statement the candidate’s duty to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal views," according to the ABA's code.

Alito’s approach to answering questions is hardly unique to SOCTUS hearings. Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her confirmation hearings said: "I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews,"

Here's what Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the time, advised Ginsburg: "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms, probably, over your tenure on the court."

FYI, Justice Ginsburg said:"Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict."

We assume you don't have a problem with our preference that decisions be made based upon the facts.